Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 47959 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2010 20:34:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 24 Jun 2010 20:34:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 27935 invoked by uid 500); 24 Jun 2010 20:34:44 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 27640 invoked by uid 500); 24 Jun 2010 20:34:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: moderator for general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 34559 invoked by uid 99); 24 Jun 2010 19:22:26 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Message-ID: <4C23B057.60803@apache.org> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:21:59 -0500 From: "William A. Rowe Jr." User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 6/23/2010 8:12 AM, Bernd Fondermann wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 14:45, ant elder wrote: > >> IMHO we should insist on using the incubator naming for the Chukwa >> website/svn/MLs because I think Chukwa should just go directly to a >> TLP and if they have to use the incubator naming it may help them >> decide that the direct to TLP route really is better ;-) > > I see you blinking here, so I guess this is not just for putting up a > strawman ;-) Well folks, it's a fun debate and all, but it isn't helping bring this vote to a conclusion :) Is anyone in agreement with ant? Otherwise we should just move ahead and can hold a separate vote on allowing tlp resource creation at this time. If the proposers want (Eric?) a three choice vote, 1. recommend TLP with guides to help the initial pmc, 2. accept incubating with tlp resource naming, but -incubating release naming, or 3. accept incubating requiring all incubator naming conventions, that might help the incubator simplify this decision. At this point, I personally guess that 1. might be the most sensible in terms of resource creation and management; it would simply require the group to vote for an initial chair/VP. If they are unsure of their group yet, perhaps one of the other mentors would offer to serve as their chair for the first six months, if they rather would do that? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org